DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JUBILANT ENERGY KHARSANG PVT. LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

PDF

ITA 3538/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 August 2024AY 2011-12Bench: the Hon'ble High Court had stated that the revenue herein had not lodged its claim towards statutory dues before the Resolution Professional (RP). The Hon'ble High Court noticed that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in case of the assessee commenced on 19.03.2017. The Hon'ble High Court noted that out of the total amount of Rs 123.10 crores available for distribution, no amounts were ear marked for payment of statutory dues by NCLT in its order dated 4.2.2020 in view of th3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), and a resolution plan was approved, which did not make any provision for statutory dues. A jurisdictional High Court decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 noted that the revenue failed to lodge its claim for statutory dues before the Resolution Professional (RP).

Held

Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's 'clean slate' approach, the Tribunal held that since the revenue had not lodged its claim before the RP and no monies were allocated for statutory dues in the NCLT order, continuing the appeal would serve no purpose. The Tribunal concluded that even if the revenue succeeded, it could not recover any dues due to its failure to implead itself in the CIRP.

Key Issues

Whether the Income Tax Department can recover statutory dues from an assessee undergoing CIRP if it failed to lodge its claim with the Resolution Professional (RP) and no provision was made in the resolution plan.

Sections Cited

143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv, Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Hearing: 09/07/2024Pronounced: 30/08/2024

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: The appeal in AY 2011-12, arises out of the 1. order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] in Appeal No. 236/2013- 14(A)5 to 17/2015-16 dated 17.03.2016 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 19.02.2014 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-4(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟).

At the outset, we find that the ld. AR placed on record a decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee‟s own case passed in ITA 999/2017 dated 05.09.2023 wherein the fact of assessee being in the clutches of Hon‟ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and a modified resolution plan was passed thereon on 04.02.2020 was noted. Further, it was noted that the resolution plan did not make any provision towards any statutory dues payable by the assessee. The assessee‟s counsel before the Hon‟ble High Court had stated that the revenue herein had not lodged its claim towards statutory dues before the Resolution Professional (RP). The Hon‟ble High Court noticed that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in case of the assessee commenced on 19.03.2017. The Hon‟ble High Court noted that out of the total amount of Rs 123.10 crores available for distribution, no amounts were ear marked for payment of statutory dues by NCLT in its order dated 4.2.2020 in view of the fact that the revenue had not lodged any claims before the RP. Though this High Court order was passed for the Asst Year 2008-09, still the fact that the revenue had not lodged any claim before the RP holds good for the year under consideration also. The Hon‟ble High Court also had noted in Paras 13 to 15 as under:-

“13. Having regard to the fact that the claims which are the subject matter of the present appeal concern the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, in which no provision has been made for statutory dues, the continuation of this appeal would serve no purpose.